Show up or...: Top court notice to Samay Raina, others over disability jokes
"Think about persons who have made irresponsible remarks what remedial and punitive action should be justifiably be taken in law," the court observed, also requesting the Attorney General to assist in the matter, citing the sensitivity of the issues raised.During a previous hearing, the top court said it was "disturbed" by Raina's jokes mocking blind individuals and an infant with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) on his YouTube show, India's Got Latent.SAMAY RAINA ACCUSED OF INSENSITIVITYIn its plea, Cure SMA Foundation criticised the YouTuber for making offensive remarks on his show, calling it one of "numerous instances (on) social media... in which persons with disabilities (and their issues) are objects of derision, pity, or public entertainment."advertisementIt further asserted that "free speech cannot carry with it the liberty to speak loosely on such serious issues and dismiss such statements as 'satire'."Lamenting the lack of sensitivity, the foundation stated that achieving "the highest degree of sensitivity and compassion" for individuals with SMA becomes a "mammoth task when certain individuals, like Samay Raina, host a comedy show and make insensitive commentaries on persons such with such condition and high cost of drugs and treatment options."The foundation's primary demand is for the court to direct the central government to include provisions in a proposed regulatory framework aimed at "regulating any derogatory, denigrating, ableist, and/or belittling content against persons with disability, their diseases, and their treatment options."It argued that such regulations should encompass content from online curated platforms, news and current affairs publishers, and self-styled influencers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Crucial to stop unauthorised construction: BJP spokesperson
Delhi BJP spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor on Saturday said it is crucial to stop dangerous and unauthorised construction, particularly of fourth and fifth floors in the city's residential areas. He urged the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), city Mayor Raja Iqbal Singh and the city Police Commissioner to approach the Supreme Court to seek clarification on the definition of 'illegal construction'. 'As per the Delhi Master Plan 2021, the designated residential or commercial land use for specific roads and lanes must be adhered to, and the relevant fees must be paid to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to ensure legal construction and usage,' he said. He also stated that the Supreme Court should be informed that both the Central and Delhi governments have directed the Delhi Police to refrain from conducting construction-related activities that are legal. 'The MCD should also clarify whether buildings being constructed as per approved maps, lawful repairs, and commercial constructions and uses on streets notified as pedestrian shopping streets, mixed land use streets, or fully commercial streets under the Master Plan, are also considered illegal by the Supreme Court,' he added.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Brazil police raid home of Bolsonaro, accused of plotting coup
Brazilian police raided Jair Bolsonaro's home on Friday (July 18,2025) as a judge imposed further restrictions on the far-right former leader while he stands trial on coup charges that have vexed U.S. president and ally Donald Trump. His son Eduardo Bolsonaro, a congressman who recently moved to the United States to lobby for his father, wrote on X that federal police carried out a "raid on my father's home this morning." He lashed out at Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes, a Bolsonaro adversary who on Friday ordered the ex-president to wear an electronic ankle bracelet, not leave his home at night, or use social media. Mr. Moraes, one of the judges in Bolsonaro's trial for allegedly seeking to nullify leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's 2022 election victory, said the measures were necessary given the "hostile acts" against Brazil by the accused and his son. This came after Mr. Trump announced a 50% tariff on the South American powerhouse for what he said was a "witch hunt" against his ally Bolsonaro. Mr. Moraes, said Eduardo Bolsonaro, "has long abandoned any semblance of impartiality and now operates as a political gangster in robes, using the Supreme Court as his personal weapon." The judge was "trying to criminalize President Trump and the US government. Powerless against them, he chose to take my father hostage," he added in a letter he signed as a "Brazilian congressman in exile." U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Friday Washington was revoking a U.S. visa for Moraes for his "political witch hunt against Jair Bolsonaro." 'Supreme humiliation' Accusing him of creating a "persecution and censorship complex," Rubio also announced visa restrictions on other judges who side with Mr. Moraes, as well as their immediate family members. Bolsonaro, 70, described the Moraes order Friday as a "supreme humiliation" and said the prohibitions were "suffocating." It also prohibited him from approaching foreign embassies, and confined him to his home on weekdays between 7:00 pm and 6:00 am, and all day on weekends or public holidays. "I never thought about leaving Brazil, I never thought about going to an embassy," Bolsonaro insisted on emerging from the justice secretariat offices in Brasilia. He had been taken there after the raid, during which police seized cash. His defense team in a statement expressed "surprise and indignation" at the new measures. The former army captain denies he was involved in an attempt to wrest power back from Lula as part of an alleged coup plot that prosecutors say failed only for a lack of military backing. After the plot fizzled, rioting supporters known as "Bolsonaristas" raided government buildings in early 2023 as they urged the military to oust Lula. Bolsonaro was abroad at the time. The case against Bolsonaro carries echoes of Trump's failed prosecution over the January 6, 2021 attacks by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol to try and reverse his election loss to Joe Biden. Both men have claimed to be victims of political persecution, and Mr. Trump has stepped in in defense of his ally, to the anger of Lula who has labeled the tariff threat "unacceptable blackmail." Washington also announced an investigation into "unfair trading practices" by Brazil, a move that could provide a legal basis for imposing tariffs on South America's largest economy. On Tuesday, prosecutors asked the trial judges of the Supreme Court to find Bolsonaro guilty of "armed criminal association" and planning to "violently overthrow the democratic order." The defense must still present its closing arguments, after which a five-member panel of judges including Moraes will decide the ex-president's fate. Bolsonaro and seven co-accused risk up to 40 years in prison. He has repeatedly stated his desire to be a candidate in presidential elections next year, but has been ruled ineligible to hold office by a court that found him guilty of spreading misinformation about Brazil's electoral system. Mr. Lula, for his part, said on Friday he intends to seek another term. "You can be sure that I will be a candidate again... I will not hand this country over to that bunch of lunatics who almost destroyed it," the 79-year-old said at a public event in the state of Ceara. Mr. Moraes has repeatedly clashed with Bolsonaro and other rightwing figures he has accused of spreading fake news. Last year, the judge suspended tech titan Elon Musk's X network in Brazil for 40 days for failing to tackle the spread of disinformation shared mainly by Bolsonaro backers
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
CJI-led bench to hear on July 22 President's reference to it on timeline for assent to Bills
The Supreme Court will take up on July 22 the reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, following the apex court's verdict fixing timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. A Constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar will consider the matter. In the Presidential reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict. The President sought to know whether the actions of the Governors and President are justiciable and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution. The reference pointed out that 'there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable or not'. Under Article 145 (3), when the President makes a reference for the court's opinion, it is placed before a five-judge bench. On April 8, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for Governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills, reserved for consideration by the Governor, within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a President's decision. The SC had said that 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned. The April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, headed by Justice J B Pardiwala, set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills for consideration of the President in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered by the Assembly, and said that the action was illegal and erroneous. In her reference to the SC, President Murmu sought to know: 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?' Article 201 prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills or withholding assent therefrom, but 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under' it. 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?' President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, 'does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options'. President Murmu asked whether 'in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President', she 'is required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?' 'Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?' The President also asked: 'Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?' Some of the other questions referred to the top court are: 'What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?; Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?' The reference pointed out that the Constitution enlists numerous instances where the assent of the President has to be obtained before a legislation can take effect in a state. It said that 'the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, inter alia being federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers'. The President said, 'States are frequently approaching the Supreme Court of India invoking Article 32 [and not Article 131] of the Constitution of India raising issues which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of, inter alia, the Constitution of India.' The reference also said that 'the contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also needs an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.' The President also said that 'the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor'. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
